[Top] [All Lists]

Re: BATV pseudo-Last Call

2008-05-20 02:43:01

At 00:57 20-05-2008, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
1) Given that today is 019, the tag exemplified above exhibits an expired day 234, thus a remote server can reject the message if it adopts the policy of not accepting unbounceable messages, even if it cannot verify the signature. (Possibly valid for batv1 only.)

Quoting Section 2.3.10 of RFC 2821:

  "Consequently, and due to a long history of problems when intermediate
   hosts have attempted to optimize transport by modifying them, the
   local-part MUST be interpreted and assigned semantics only by the host
   specified in the domain part of the address."

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>